Slashdot Mirror
Time To Re-Evaluate Microsoft's Linux Myths Page?
cluge asks: "MS still proudly presents their Linux Myths Page and recent Dell commercials show Linux as a 'lower end' solution. This seems even stranger coming from Dell when you look at all the the Linux solutions that they are offering. The comparison made in their print adds compare 2 machines with vastly different amounts of memory (or so has been reported here and elsewhere). With a new kernel coming out, should the Linux community tune a couple of machines and set up an open test? Test the following: static Web serving, file sharing (Samba or NTFS), and routing performance. Having Linux knowledgeable people run the test allows performance tuning for the application being tested. The testers comments and recommendation on performance tuning will be valuable to the entire Linux community and the tests will let the community know where it stands, win, lose or draw." So how much difference does a year make? Do any of the claims on that page still hold any merit today?
I see a few problems with the suggested tests.
Static web content. This is almost a non-issue for dynamic eCommerce sites that generate most pages from database content and/or personalised content. In the coming age of Internet transactions there will be little requirement for purely static serving at large volume. Servers need to be tested for performance talking to Oracle/DB2/SQL Server databases, and also server to server XML. These are soon to be the more prominent roles of the web server in the business world rather than just serving up static pages.
And routing performance against NT? Why bother? How many people do you know that buy NT boxes for routers? If you're going to spend the money you might as well buy a hardware solution. If you don't want to spend the money, then everyone knows Linux already makes a decent router regardless of the 2.4 kernel.
When it comes to a purchasing decision, it will end up coming down to more than just this sort of testing.
That might sound like marketing-speak, but for better or worse, its true. NT is there in the server farms of America, and it is staying up and performing in spite of itself. Get used to seeing Win2k more and more in the server farms you visit in coming years.
There are no OEMs that provide uptime guarantees for Linux
Once again, the grain of truth here is that none of the linux distro vendors can really be taken seriously at this point, and most have thrived purely on the goodwill of the community. I can't think of one commercial distro that is truly enterprise worthy outside of Debian (which I consider noncommercial).
After the RH 7 debacle, do you really expect them to offer uptime guarantees? Sometimes I wish someone like IBM would issue a distro, just so there would be a real player with a serious service commitment behind the product.
Linux is getting there, and for most of its users its presents an incredible value. You have to look past these customers at some point and consider how you are going to satisfy customers who do not have budget constraints, but do have significant demands of the software and support they pay for.